Date: Tue, 30 Dec 2014 14:51:43 +0100 From: Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> To: Jason Bacon <jwbacon@tds.net> Cc: "svn-ports-head@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-head@freebsd.org>, Dag-Erling =?UTF-8?B?U23DuHJncmF2?= <des@des.no>, "svn-ports-all@freebsd.org" <svn-ports-all@freebsd.org>, "marino@freebsd.org" <marino@freebsd.org>, "ports-committers@freebsd.org" <ports-committers@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: svn commit: r370220 - in head/biology: . ncbi-blast Message-ID: <20141230145143.689a33eb@bsd64.grem.de> In-Reply-To: <54A2A7EA.6020607@tds.net> References: <201410062016.s96KGZP8084850@svn.freebsd.org> <86r3vjg054.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A04955.3010601@marino.st> <86387zfur3.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05AB7.3020200@marino.st> <86sifzef1i.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A05E8E.20802@marino.st> <0E188BDF-EBCD-4849-B329-C7109A52BD33@freebsd.org> <86oaqle7yu.fsf@nine.des.no> <54A2A7EA.6020607@tds.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Tue, 30 Dec 2014 07:26:02 -0600 Jason Bacon <jwbacon@tds.net> wrote: > On 12/30/14 04:40, Dag-Erling Sm=C3=B8rgrav wrote: > > Michael Gmelin <grembo@freebsd.org> writes: > >> I don't really follow the argument of bumping portepoch (it's not a > >> very explicit way of stating that this is not the original version > >> - IMHO it's actually not what portepoch is about). > > I never asked anyone to bump PORTEPOCH. I merely pointed out that > > if the ncbi-blast name were to be used for BLAST, PORTEPOCH would > > have to be bumped due to PORTVERSION regressing from 2.2.30 to > > 2.2.26. > > > > DES >=20 > A valid point. Not likely to happen, since the only other candidate > for the name ncbi-blast already exists as ncbi-toolkit. >=20 > Still, I would not be averse to renaming it just for clarity. I > would suggest "ncbi-blast+". I don't know if there are any taboos > about using a '+' in a port name, but there are currently 64 ports > that do it and I like to keep things short and sweet. >=20 > Now would be the time to do this, since it's still new and not yet a=20 > dependency for any other ports. >=20 I would prefer ncbi-blast-plus, but I cannot find anything forbidding nci-blast+ in the handbook, so I would be fine with that (it's not very specific on this topic): https://www.freebsd.org/doc/en/books/porters-handbook/makefile-naming.html Is there a preferred way of renaming a port? Otherwise I would just rmport it and re-add it under the new name. Michael --=20 Michael Gmelin
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20141230145143.689a33eb>